Nestorianism

Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of [[adoptionism]] – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son. Nestorius was especially criticized by [[Cyril of Alexandria|Cyril]], [[Patriarch of Alexandria]], who argued that Nestorius's teachings undermined the unity of Christ's divine and human natures at the [[Incarnation (Christianity)|Incarnation]]. Some of Nestorius's opponents argued that he put too much emphasis on the human nature of Christ, and others debated that the difference that Nestorius implied between the human nature and the divine nature created a fracture in the singularity of Christ, thus creating two Christ figures.{{cite book |first=Jerry |last=Bentley |title=Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times |url=https://archive.org/details/oldworldencounte00jerr |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |date=1993 |page=[https://archive.org/details/oldworldencounte00jerr/page/105 105]}} Nestorius himself always insisted that his views were orthodox, though they were deemed [[heresy|heretical]] at the [[Council of Ephesus]] in 431, leading to the [[Nestorian Schism]], when churches supportive of Nestorius and the rest of the Christian Church separated. However, this formulation was never adopted by all churches termed 'Nestorian'. Indeed, the modern Assyrian Church of the East, which reveres Nestorius, does not fully subscribe to Nestorian doctrine, though it does not employ the title ''Theotokos''.{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/409867/Nestorius |title=Nestorius |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=January 29, 2010}}

Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of [[adoptionism]] – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son. Nestorius was especially criticized by [[Cyril of Alexandria|Cyril]], [[Patriarch of Alexandria]], who argued that Nestorius's teachings undermined the unity of Christ's divine and human natures at the [[Incarnation (Christianity)|Incarnation]]. Some of Nestorius's opponents argued that he put too much emphasis on the human nature of Christ, and others debated that the difference that Nestorius implied between the human nature and the divine nature created a fracture in the singularity of Christ, thus creating two Christ figures.{{cite book |first=Jerry |last=Bentley |title=Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times |url=https://archive.org/details/oldworldencounte00jerr |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |date=1993 |page=[https://archive.org/details/oldworldencounte00jerr/page/105 105]}} Nestorius himself always insisted that his views were orthodox, though they were deemed [[heresy|heretical]] at the [[Council of Ephesus]] in 431, leading to the [[Nestorian Schism]], when churches supportive of Nestorius and the rest of the Christian Church separated. However, this formulation was never adopted by all churches termed 'Nestorian'. Indeed, the modern Assyrian Church of the East, which reveres Nestorius, does not fully subscribe to Nestorian doctrine, though it does not employ the title ''Theotokos''.{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/409867/Nestorius |title=Nestorius |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=January 29, 2010}}

==Intentions==

As written in his Bazaar of Heracleides, Nestorius went on to qualify his beliefs, including justifying his position. Seemingly disconnecting him from the heresy of nestorianism. He would state that he never taught two persons or separated the Savior into two, affirming two natures in one person, that Mary is the mother of God; that Christ is God and Man. And, he "''was born in flesh Christ, who is God above all.''" {{cite book |last1=Nestorius |title=The Bazaar of Heracleides |last2=Driver |first2=G. R. |last3=Hodgson |first3=Leonard |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1925 |page=96 |url=https://archive.org}} God of all. As John McGuckin says, "For Nestorius, a nature without a hypostasis was a 'phantom.' He used the word to mean the concrete particularity of the nature. His critics, however, read 'hypostasis' as 'Person,' and thus accused him of teaching two Persons when he was actually trying to teach two concrete realities." {{cite book |last=McGuckin |first=John |title=Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts |publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press |year=2004 |page=153 |isbn=978-0881412598 |url=https://google.com}}

As written in his Bazaar of Heracleides, Nestorius went on to qualify his beliefs, including justifying his position. Seemingly disconnecting him from the heresy of nestorianism. He would state that he never taught two persons or separated the Savior into two, affirming two natures in one person, that Mary is the mother of God; that Christ is God and Man. And, he "''was born in flesh Christ, who is God above all.''" {{cite book |last1=Nestorius |title=The Bazaar of Heracleides |last2=Driver |first2=G. R. |last3=Hodgson |first3=Leonard |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1925 |page=96 |url=https://archive.org}} God of all. As John McGuckin says, "For Nestorius, a nature without a hypostasis was a 'phantom.' He used the word to mean the concrete particularity of the nature. His critics, however, read 'hypostasis' as 'Person,' and thus accused him of teaching two Persons when he was actually trying to teach two concrete realities." {{cite book |last=McGuckin |first=John |title=Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts |publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press |year=2004 |page=153 |isbn=978-0881412598 |url=https://google.com}}